#30 great points indeed. In fact, one might argue that some of the top grandmasters in history have led some questionably successful lives...especially if we take social integration as a measure of success.
Look at how Steinitz finished his life, how Morphy ended up etc. etc. - that being said I personally know some strong chess players that are very successful at life (lot's of money, good wife, good social life, good education etc. etc.) - however they did not build their success on chess - that is indeed extremely hard, but we can't rule out that chess helped. Also know many very good chess players with very sad live etc. So I believe there is simply little correlation chess success>life success - sometimes it actually goes downwards - that success in chess means less success in life (perhaps too much time was spent in chess which helped little or too little in life success), but as well the other way. So in essence judging how successful you are in life by your chess results are a poor uninformed judgment.
to the OP:
you play too high rated players. if you just started with chess your rating is probably around 1000-1200 elo. this does not mean you are bad at chess, it is just normal. you play against 1500 rating players which are around entry level chess club players who probably have played 1000+ games in their life. you need to match against lower rated players. so first you need to play more rated games, until you win a few games, then you know that you have found the rating that actually reflects your current skills.
at the start it is very easy to improve in chess, so through training and just playing you will get better easily.
it is like starting off to play any sport like basketball - you would not expect to start competing against some guys that have been playing for hundreds of hours. or like math - you won't start math at analysis.
you play too high rated players. if you just started with chess your rating is probably around 1000-1200 elo. this does not mean you are bad at chess, it is just normal. you play against 1500 rating players which are around entry level chess club players who probably have played 1000+ games in their life. you need to match against lower rated players. so first you need to play more rated games, until you win a few games, then you know that you have found the rating that actually reflects your current skills.
at the start it is very easy to improve in chess, so through training and just playing you will get better easily.
it is like starting off to play any sport like basketball - you would not expect to start competing against some guys that have been playing for hundreds of hours. or like math - you won't start math at analysis.
Any wise man would quit this insipid game.
Jarilkonen -- I am now a true believer in your DEEP WISDOM (i jsut woke up to a pawn fork ruining a great tug of war game)
This talk of success is moot.
Chess is a part of life. Success in chess is success in at least one area of life.
If some of the greatest chess masters "did not lead a successful life outside of chess", then the same claim may be made of all the great artists, writers, and musicians who had little money or "social integration" during their lifetime. They were still great men, and very successful in their own fields.
Of course the word "success" doesn't have a fixed meaning. A word is just a symbol that can mean many things.
"Success" does not only mean "money", nor does it only mean Happiness, World Renown during one's lifetime, or any other singular, fixed thing. What it DOES mean, in all cases, is achievement.
To say that great chess players (or great men in ANY area of life) led unsuccessful lives is absurd. They may not have succeeded in astronomy, or philosophy, or a multitude of other areas in life, but they undoubtedly succeeded in chess.
Nobody succeeds in every aspect of life; few truly succeed at anything!
Chess is a part of life. Success in chess is success in at least one area of life.
If some of the greatest chess masters "did not lead a successful life outside of chess", then the same claim may be made of all the great artists, writers, and musicians who had little money or "social integration" during their lifetime. They were still great men, and very successful in their own fields.
Of course the word "success" doesn't have a fixed meaning. A word is just a symbol that can mean many things.
"Success" does not only mean "money", nor does it only mean Happiness, World Renown during one's lifetime, or any other singular, fixed thing. What it DOES mean, in all cases, is achievement.
To say that great chess players (or great men in ANY area of life) led unsuccessful lives is absurd. They may not have succeeded in astronomy, or philosophy, or a multitude of other areas in life, but they undoubtedly succeeded in chess.
Nobody succeeds in every aspect of life; few truly succeed at anything!
difficult to agree with #34 - for example you can hardly not call BIll Gates a wise man:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=84NwnSltHFo
He definitely has shown he has interest in chess, though he probably is not extremely strong, which would again prove that chess strength mainly comes from hard study and practice.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is also a chess enthusiast:
http://images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/images_users/tiny_mce/MaximRecoil/phpATkIPt.jpeg
Though he is probably only slightly above average adult strength in chess.
You can hardly call those man losers or something like that.
My belief is that playing chess is mostly a positive thing and will improve your life experience, but studying to become a champion etc. has low success rate in terms of life success, since you will probably not become a champion, not earn any substantial money in any why through chess, and you might lose much essential life time for things that have shown for ages to have good success rate for life success - like education (and good job abilities), social contacts, communicability, good mental and physical health , being able to stand for yourself etc.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=84NwnSltHFo
He definitely has shown he has interest in chess, though he probably is not extremely strong, which would again prove that chess strength mainly comes from hard study and practice.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is also a chess enthusiast:
http://images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/images_users/tiny_mce/MaximRecoil/phpATkIPt.jpeg
Though he is probably only slightly above average adult strength in chess.
You can hardly call those man losers or something like that.
My belief is that playing chess is mostly a positive thing and will improve your life experience, but studying to become a champion etc. has low success rate in terms of life success, since you will probably not become a champion, not earn any substantial money in any why through chess, and you might lose much essential life time for things that have shown for ages to have good success rate for life success - like education (and good job abilities), social contacts, communicability, good mental and physical health , being able to stand for yourself etc.
in answer to #36
I also mentioned that the very thing of what being successful in life means is highly debatable
but you can't deny that there is a common understanding of what it means - things like, money, fame, good social life, happy marriage, good health., appreciation etc.
that however does not mean that all people values those things the most or even strive for them - there is a definite problem for a hard definition of success in life - you can be very successful by all those measures, but very unhappy and depressed inside, and there are many actual known examples for that
Also probably the most happy person is some animal like a swine or fish or a penguin in Antarctica. Often lack of understanding just how awful and fake the life is (or might be) will be enough to be happy etc. So it's difficult.
I also mentioned that the very thing of what being successful in life means is highly debatable
but you can't deny that there is a common understanding of what it means - things like, money, fame, good social life, happy marriage, good health., appreciation etc.
that however does not mean that all people values those things the most or even strive for them - there is a definite problem for a hard definition of success in life - you can be very successful by all those measures, but very unhappy and depressed inside, and there are many actual known examples for that
Also probably the most happy person is some animal like a swine or fish or a penguin in Antarctica. Often lack of understanding just how awful and fake the life is (or might be) will be enough to be happy etc. So it's difficult.
There is no debate, mwghost.
Success in any area of life is a successful life (in that area) by definition.
If someone is successful in one area, but unsuccessful in others, that doesn't mean they aren't a successful individual, it only means they aren't successful in those other measures of success.
Again, every successful person is unsuccessful in several other areas of success, and most people don't even truly succeed in ANY area.
Success in any area of life is a successful life (in that area) by definition.
If someone is successful in one area, but unsuccessful in others, that doesn't mean they aren't a successful individual, it only means they aren't successful in those other measures of success.
Again, every successful person is unsuccessful in several other areas of success, and most people don't even truly succeed in ANY area.
My observation of most new players is that they don't develop their pieces. So, I would suggest:
Put out a central pawn. Get knights and bishops out in fairly central positions. Castle. Then get on with the game.
I know that 'better players' don't do this exactly, but once you've got some more experience under your belt you can play different stuff. In the meantime, just get involved in the middle game and see how you do over a year or so. (Few develop in a few months. However, I would suggest going through a beginner's book and maybe then the games of somebody 'old' like Morphy and Capablanca.)
Put out a central pawn. Get knights and bishops out in fairly central positions. Castle. Then get on with the game.
I know that 'better players' don't do this exactly, but once you've got some more experience under your belt you can play different stuff. In the meantime, just get involved in the middle game and see how you do over a year or so. (Few develop in a few months. However, I would suggest going through a beginner's book and maybe then the games of somebody 'old' like Morphy and Capablanca.)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.